User:Martin Hogbin/MC

The encyclopedia anyone can edit
Wikipedia is a unique project in that it is open and accessible to almost anyone who has a computer. That includes many groups of people who might have difficulties, problems, or issues with other forms of communication. I think everyone would agree that the views of people of all types should be equally welcome and have equal weight even in conflict situations such as mediation. Priviate mediation may not be suitable for all editors therefore I have therefore proposed the following addition to Mediation Committee policy:


 * Editors are not required engage in private mediation and will not suffer any penalty or disadvantage if they choose not to do so. Editors are not be required to give reasons for not wanting to engage in private mediation.

The mediation committee refuse to accept, or even seriously discuss t, this subject which I believe is fundamental to the inclusiveness of WP. I believe that this is contrary to the fundamental principle of Wikipedia.

Jimmy Wales's Statement of principles (first three, slightly abridged)

 * 1) Wikipedia's success to date is entirely a function of our open community. This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do the Right Thing. Doing the Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the NPOV and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty.
 * 2) Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, no elite, and no hierarchy or structure to get in the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be implemented to protect the community against real vandals (and there are real vandals, who do occasionally affect us), should be implemented on the model of "strict scrutiny." "Strict scrutiny" means that any measures instituted for security must address a compelling community interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective and no other.
 * 3) "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.

Audit trail
All conversation on WP are recorded, generally with dates, times, and signatures. Who said what and when is there for all to see. This generally prevents claims and counterclaims that somebody made some particular point or agreed or disagreed. The recording of all edit is automatic and does not have to be enabled or specially set up.

Anonymity and privacy
Editors can decide how much or little they wish to reveal about themselves on WP. A registered user reveals nothing but a chosen nickname. Editors do not have to reveal to anyone their age, sex, political views, disabilities, temperament, nationality or religion.

On the other hand everything said is public. No bad things can be said without everyone knowing about it.

Time for thought
Wiki discussions do not generally take place in real time. Editors have time to think about what they say, and what they do not say.

Enforcement of standards of Civility
There is a strong emphasis on civility on WP with standards being enforced. This helps prevent conversations spiraling out of control.

No special software or computer setting required
To use Wikipedia all that is needed is an ordinary web browser. No computer knowledge, downloads, installations, or special settings are required to edit. No costs are involved in editing WP.

Current status
Current policy states, Although most mediations happen on public Wikipedia pages, mediation can be held in private—by email, over IRC, or on the Committee's private wiki. Skype and telephone contact have also been suggested by committee members.

After a very brief discussion, the following was added to the policy page:


 * Parties may decline to participate in off-wiki mediation even if they have agreed to on-wiki mediation. No party is compelled to participate in off-wiki discussions, just as no party is compelled to participate in mediation at all.

So what is the problem? Parties may decline to participate in off-wiki mediation. The problem is that this says nothing new. It is obvious that anyone can decline off-wiki mediation - the committee have no physical power to make anyone contact them. What is missing is the statement that declining off-wiki mediation will not reduce the right of that editor to be heard.

The above features mean that WP attracts a much more diverse range of editors that other media, which may only be suitable for certain types of person. No other medium has all the above features. For this reason, some editors may be placed at a serious disadvantage by being asked or pressurised into engaging in private mediation through some other channel. Example of those who may lose out because of this are:

Careful thinkers and writers
This is probably the largest group that would be put at a disadvantage by being forced to includes many people we want here.

The misunderstood

The disabled

Children